Live from the Table: Equity, Equality and Wokeness with Peter Boghossian
Live from the Table: Equity, Equality and Wokeness with Peter Boghossian
Peter Boghossian is a Founding Faculty advisor at the University of Austin and the Executive Director of National Progress Alliance. His most recent book is How to Have Impossible Conversations, and his writing can be found in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Scientific American, Time Magazine, National Review, and elsewhere. His…
source
Reviews
0 %
Noam, I think your charitable interpretation of Bernstein is correct – or at least it's better to err on the side of charity, here. Peter mentioned requiring more datapoints to come to such a conclusion, but to me the opposite seems more the case. We should require more data to condemn than we do to give people a pass.
Oh, and as for psychedelics, I wouldn't recommend DMT as your first foray, even though the short length might be appealing to you. Normally I'd recommend mescaline, but that can last for 10-12 hours, so mushrooms really are your best bet. I'm sure you can sequester four hours. :0)
~ Hi. Thanks for this.
The time scale of space is impossible to really envisage. Discovering the earth's entire history alone is already way more than we can grok. Imagine owning the jewel of eternity and then saying to someone " I'd like to try a different one ". We just don't know what we've got , etc.
Is Peter an unusually good intellectual and it’s just coincidence that they cancelled him? or have many academics of a slightly lesser nature (less brilliant, or perhaps just less well-spoken) been cancelled and people didn’t notice? I think the latter, and the losses to our collective conversation have been immense. DEI ‘anti-racism’ has to stop, it’s so misguided. Some people feel it is fundamentally, but even if you agree with its goals, many people are trying to warn that it leads to regressive behaviors, aka it INCREASES racism and discrimination. and people are not listening.
The tragedy of the wokeism movement is partly its timing. It would have been nicer if people had lost their minds on this issue when Trump wasn’t around. But here we are, and when faced with that comical choice, most people will choose corrupt and incompetent Trump, over crazy, academic, ideological wokeness.
Please have Peter back one day! I feel like you guys could have gone on forever.
Segregating under any whim is cruel.
Women have abortions in the 3rd trimester for medical reasons.
Love Peter, great interviewers. Subscribed
There is NO argument about race an IQ. There IS only studies that clearly demonstrate a correlation between race and IQ.
In an earlier podcast, Noam clearly acknowledged that there were significant questions surrounding the bribery allegations surrounding VP Joe Biden. I know Noam is desperate to want Joe Biden instead of DJT, but the only reason Dr. Boghossian gave for Joe Biden as president, is that he wouldn't sell out his country.
So what exactly does Hunter and the bribery show us?
Denying inherent differences between “the races” is really quite similar to traditional Creationism. It is in direct opposition to the theory of evolution. If humans have existed on different continents in different environments for thousands of years then there will inevitably be important differences between them
Noam, when are you going to admit you were wrong, and Finkelstein was right, on the question of Israel starving the Palestinians?
20:27 the example I think he is about to go into, is the one of Cephalus.
It doesn’t follow that morality is objective simply because we can rationally derive moral principles. Obviously one can have a set of moral principles that is entirely subjective and coherent. The burden for the moral realist is to show that there are stance independent moral facts, and simply deriving coherent moral principles doesn’t get that done. Even if every person on earth had the same set of moral principles, that only means those principles are universal, not objective. Peter is a philosopher and knows better. I don’t know what he’s trying to convey with this view of morality but it’s very weak.
Thus is just embarrassing. A person normally associates 'great comedian' when the comedy celllar is brought up. yuck
The real "motte and bailey" aspect of Kamala's analogy for equality vs equity is that she switches between individual circumstance consideration and group based accommodations. Her analogy breaks down if you replace the two individuals, where one has a starting advantage over the other, with two groups where one group has a net advantage on average but there is a lot of crossover among the individuals of each group. Race based "equity" like affirmative action would be the opposite of what she claims it is because it doesn't look at an individual's particular circumstances, but instead provides benefits based on immutable racial characteristics.
Loved the dgf honesty in this conversation.
Can you reveal what Boghossian told you about maintaining your mental sharpness? Is one of the side effects becoming wholly unlikable?
My issue with calling Trump “divisive” is that the media is the institution pushing that. If they treated him differently than maybe he would not be as divisive. Just think about if they gave the honesty scrutiny to Biden in the same way they do Trump. Would Biden then be divisive? In my opinion, the media is the culprit here. If they just treated both sides equally then maybe we would be less divided.
But there is no question that the government prints money
23:58 Who is this Plato guy🤧
Great discussion guys! When it comes to equality of opportunity(this is extremely hard to achieve) ) and equality of outcome(how?) it’s a pretty depressing subject. It just seems like a wide disparity is always going to exist due to multiple factors. Currently the amount of homes without fathers is only growing and that’s definitely not good . The public school system is beyond broken as well . With AI advancements increasing daily that certainly isn’t going to help either
I've pondered on the view of expertise. I think that what defines an expert to a degree is the status others give them through perceived recognition of skills. With that in mind, would someone who is little known but highly skilled be considered an expert? When does an expert become an expert? Is the overriding factor being highly skilled or being well known and possibly popular? I realise it could be both, but at what level?
He made some very strong statements that went totally unchallenged. Every single teaching institution is now based on one book. And they have all abandoned the search for truth?
Odd that he didn’t mention his writing partners name. The absolute nutbag James Lindsay I suspect.
Look at how many children of immigrants successful despite the parents didn’t have money and the kids went to public schools. We also need more choice schools.